Panel discussion: can the United Nations survive?
2003 Report (Continued)
As to whether the UN can survive, Mortimer maintained that the answer has yet to be seen, and depends on whether the Security Council can preserve its authority, since without that organ, the authority and legitimacy of the other UN bodies--the World Health Organization, etcetera-- would be in question. But must we already give up hope in the Security Council's ability to protect future generations from war, as Glennon implied we had? Mortimer said that while, in the build-up to the war in Iraq, this problem was presented by the media as a new issue, it is indeed as old as the organization itself. The better question is: has the UN restrained war, or perhaps prevented another World War, or helped to do so? If so, the organization has much more value than Glennon would allow. Furthermore, it would be much easier to work within the current system to improve it rather than trying to build entirely new structure in our unipolar, globalized, and increasingly anarchic world.
Mortimer went on to address the subject of the relationship between the U.S. and the UN, agreeing with Ambassador Mahbubani that the U.S. must be convinced that there is "something in it for them" if they are to abide by international law. He disagreed with Mahbubani, however, on the point that the Security Council has a monopoly on legitimacy. In reality, Mortimer maintained, there is a legitimacy "market" and so the Security Council must convince the U.S. that it can have a real effect and that it wants to address America's interests as much as anyone's. Mortimer finished by saying that we must work toward the survival of the UN and the Security Council not for the sake of our souls, but for the sake of our survival.
The floor was then opened up to the audience for questions. The first listener posed the following question: the P5 were given veto power because those states were considered the most likely to bear the costs (financial and military) of enforcing Security Council decisions. Did the panelists suggest eliminating the veto altogether? Did they think that radical reform could be effected while the P5 still have their veto power? Professor Glennon responded that the U.S. will not remain in the UN if its veto is revoked, since this would violate Congress' ability to declare war, as given by the Constitution. Ambassador Mahbubani added that while none of the P5 will voluntarily allow their vetoes to be revoked, the current Security Council reflects the out-of-date power structure of 1945. The Council should more fairly represent the future, the six billion inhabitants of the Member States.
The second question had two parts. First, the Secretary-General's speech to the current General Assembly resembled a cri de coeur--was the attack on UN personnel in Baghdad on August 19th not an influence? Second, why is humanitarian intervention being considered a new problem when crimes against humanity persisted throughout the 60s and 70s without UN accountability? Edward Mortimer answered the question's first part by stating that he did not mean to downplay the attack of August 19th and yet the speech wasn't primarily a reaction to that event, but rather a comment on changes in the world since September 11, 2001. The speech was meant to address events including the adoption of the Millennium Declaration as well as the war in Iraq. On the second part of the question, Mortimer commented that the UN, which was formed in the wake of the Holocaust, was always interested in humanitarian issues, but that these were less central during the Cold War. Since its end, they have been brought to the fore--take the public indignation over what happened in Rwanda.
Back to the top.Recent Event ...
Iran and the Middle East: How to Shape a Security Regime Acceptable to All Regional Actors
Panel discussion at New York University on Wednesday, March. 26, 2008 6:30—8:30 pm
Donate Now
How to make a tax-deductible donation to The Center for Dialogues
Donate
